Sharper on one side more than another? Quite common on most Point n Shoot cameras and Sony really doesnt have greatest quality testing department. Somewhere around Samsung quality unfortunately..
Tho pics would be nice.
In US, simply return to shop you bought it from? Otherwise I think Sony does have official service centers?
The top corner is softer than everything else in the same plane of focus, when shot at 100mm (eq. FL) and between F4.9 and F6.3. By F8 it is harder to notice. The lens is clearly de centered.
I am sending it to Texas for repair. Hope it works?
here is a pic with crop to show what I see…
Full shot
Center of the right side (this is the plane of focus).
top right corner. The tree in the corner is the plane of focus.
That's like mine David.
I'm not sending it in yet, because I want to use it on some trips next month. I'm curious if Sony will fix it or they'll just say "it's within specs".
FlyPenFly wrote:
So at max zoom at near the max aperture, the far corner is softer. I mean, I think that's normal for any zoom lens except giant pro ones.
I agree if all 4 corners were equally soft.
The problem is that the top right corner is always softer than the other 3, which indicates something's not right with the lens. Mostly noticeable when shooting more distant subjects.
But: when I'm not pixelpeeping the corner I must say that I'm still highly impressed by this camera.
It seems that a softer right corner is a pretty common issue, and an issue I really don't think is too unique to the RX100. If we were to take darn near any other compact, crap 20 megs of resolution into it, and then put it into the hands of a bunch of enthusiast who not only pixel peep but also that are used to very high quality alt glass I think we'd find plenty of similar issues.
Heck, doesn't even have to be compacts, look at the Sony NEX 16mm or 18-55 lenses corner performance on a camera like the NEX7. They don't hold up too well and those lenses don't even have the design constraint of having to fold into a pocket sized body
Basically I think its a question of "are we asking too much" and "compared to what" ?
Is it reasonable to expect edge to edge sharpness over the entire focal length ?
What are we comparing this point and shoot camera to ? A Zeiss 100mm ZE ?
On a related point, how does this edge softness really affect our use of the camera ? Are we shooting landscapes at 100mm and needing edge to edge sharpness ?
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd say I'm at 28 or 35mm equiv about 90% of the time and I've occasionally used longer focal lengths but given its f4.9 there just isn't much shallow DoF potential and its realistically not a "portrait" tool for me.
To each his own of course, but I'd say if I had to have any optical defect in the zoom, I'd want it at 100mm as thats what I shoot least, and if I could have it anywhere, I'd want it on the edge, because of the 10% I may shoot 100mm, 90% of that time I'd want a sharp center, which it has.
Don't get me wrong, it would be great if it could have edge to edge sharpness of any Leica or Zeiss lens, but is that realistic ?
Would it even be realistic to expect most Canon or Nikon or Tamron etc zoom lenses, often costing more than the entire RX100 camera, to really have that type of performance ??
I certainly will be interested to hear of what Sony says, and if a fix is possible it would be awesome, but given it seems a common problem, and one you can only see when pixel peeping, I think its sadly just "within spec" for the size/price/market of the camera
If anyone demands more, then I think the camera may just not be for them and they should stick with legacy glass on something like a NEX5.
That really will give you edge to edge sharpness with the right glass, but you'll have to give up some size and also spend several times more money
What are you shooting at 100mm at max aperture that requires corner to corner full edge sharpness? I mean if it goes away at F8, I'm not even sure I'd call that lens defect any more than ZF 100 Makro Planar that has CA at F2.
I hate when non-photographer techie idiots review cameras and call it an "expert" review
How on earth can they list limited raw functionality as a con because you can't apply picture effects to RAW files ? WTF to they think a RAW file is exactly ? The whole point of shooting RAW files is you don't have to have the camera apply a bunch of in camera processing.
If you want a bunch of straight out of camera effects, which the camera can do plenty of, use JPEGs
I swear, its like some tight jean wearing hippie techie web writer must want to shoot RAW because he read on the internet its what "real" photographers do and yet he's upset because he can't have them with some hipstermatic 70's style color process and minature effect out of camera.
Just a stupid complaint. The fact the RX100 has raw mode, and more so has an amazing raw buffer should be a huge PRO, not a con.
I don't want the files touched, I want to do that myself to taste in LR using my own aesthetic and my own plugins.
Boooooo, the RX100 won't do black and white RAW files, I don't like this camera
I saw good, because myself, and anyone else who has a copy of SFX2 actually want to be able to do that ourselves.
millsart wrote:
I swear, its like some tight jean wearing hippie techie web writer must want to shoot RAW because he read on the internet its what "real" photographers do and yet he's upset because he can't have them with some hipstermatic 70's style color process and minature effect out of camera.
What are you shooting at 100mm at max aperture that requires corner to corner full edge sharpness? I mean if it goes away at F8, I'm not even sure I'd call that lens defect any more than ZF 100 Makro Planar that has CA at F2.
One could also just pretend the camera is a 28-80mm, or even a 28-60mm, which I'm sure plenty of people would still be quite happy with (Heck, you still see people saying the LX3 was better than the LX5 and 7 right ? lol) and not shoot it at 100mm.
I've had plenty of zooms that I just couldn't use the last bit of focal length. My Panasonic 100-300 and 45-200 for example. Pretty good optics but on the 45-200 things went downhill FAST past 150mm and I just didn't shoot it at that focal length.
Again, in a perfect world we'd have edge to edge sharpness at every focal length but I don't think thats reasonable on lower priced consumer glass.
I've got the Gigapan (which again I'm finding I'm not really using lol) but I rather find it great the RX100 is sharp in 3 corners at 100mm.
Why ?
Because 3 sharp corners beat 4 corners of equal softness and when stitching one soft corner isn't an issue at all.
What are you shooting at 100mm at max aperture that requires corner to corner full edge sharpness? I mean if it goes away at F8, I'm not even sure I'd call that lens defect any more than ZF 100 Makro Planar that has CA at F2.
The problem is, that my RX100 is unsharp on the right edge, even stopped down f/8. And you see the decentering even at 50mm focal length (worst case is 100mm).
millsart wrote:
What are we comparing this point and shoot camera to ?
I'm comparing the RX100 with cameras like the DP1, DP1M, LX-2 and LX-7. All of these cameras had/have lenses with good corner sharpness, even wide open.
I'm expecting the same from the RX100, which is maybe too much.
Bobu wrote:
The problem is, that my RX100 is unsharp on the right edge, even stopped down f/8. And you see the decentering even at 50mm focal length (worst case is 100mm).
Boris
Your issue does look worse than the average. On mine if I view it at 100% I can see some softening in the corner and about 10% of the right edge, but you really have to look for it at 100% to notice it, which I think is the normal RX100 100mm output, as per all the samples I've viewed in various forums.
Some could have a bit worse, like yours, but I just don't think anyone is really going to come across one that has perfect edge to edge sharpness no matter how many cameras you try or how many times you send it in for service.
Bobu wrote:
I'm comparing the RX100 with cameras like the DP1, DP1M, LX-2 and LX-7. All of these cameras had/have lenses with good corner sharpness, even wide open.
I'm expecting the same from the RX100, which is maybe too much.
Boris
I think its probably too much to expect for several reasons.
1) the Sigma's while having what looks like some amazing output are fixed lens and are pretty bulky, not to mention costing $1000 and having rather slow performance. Great output, tough camera to live with day to day in terms of performance and size.
2) LX7 etc are using a much smaller sensor and also are only 10 megs. Its got to be a lot tougher to design a lens that can cover a much LARGER sensor with twice the megapixels than it does to build a lens that can cover a much SMALLER sensor and all the while have the bigger sensor camera be the SMALLER camera.
There are any number of compacts with great lenses. My old Canon G10 for example had an exceptional lens, sharp edge to edge, but it was again using a small sensor and was also very noisy at even ISO100 (base was 80) Made it nice for landscapes, and again my first Gigapan, but for day to day shooting it was pretty poor and way too noisy.
Those cameras all have a look of a compact though as well. Heck, any superzoom is going to be darn sharp at 100mm because its right in the middle of the focal range but its a sharp file from a pinhead sized sensor.
You could also compare the RX100 to something like the Fuji X100 etc but again just isn't a pocket camera, nor would any m4/3 camera really count either.
I actually think the RX100 is better across the board than my GF1 with 14mm f2.5 on it. Cleaner output, better lens, fits into my pocket.
Really just comes down to it is what it is though. A camera with some weaknesses, and a lot of strengths.
If one wants a 100mm equiv across the frame sharpness landscape shooter, then its probably the wrong camera
If one wants a fast 28mm equiv with fast response, pocketability and the ability to get a bit of a bigger camera look, then there is nothing better on the market.
millsart wrote:
If one wants a fast 28mm equiv with fast response, pocketability and the ability to get a bit of a bigger camera look, then there is nothing better on the market.
Hm I might just be tempted, after the last trip I found myself almost exclusively using the 28mm equiv. ( in form of the ZM18 ).
millsart wrote:
I hate when non-photographer techie idiots review cameras and call it an "expert" review
How on earth can they list limited raw functionality as a con because you can't apply picture effects to RAW files ? WTF to they think a RAW file is exactly ? The whole point of shooting RAW files is you don't have to have the camera apply a bunch of in camera processing.
I think what they meant was when shooting in RAW+Jpeg mode where picture modes and the clear view options are locked out unless you shoot exclusively in Jpeg mode.
I would like to see those modes unlocked when shooting in RAW+Jpeg (applied to the Jpeg file, or record a separate Jpeg file with the picture mode applied, while keeping the RAW file unprocessed) because sometimes those modes come in useful, however, I would also like to have a RAW file.
Sony should have also included the option to apply the filters to Jpeg files after they have been taken, then save it as a new file like other manufactures offer in their cameras.
I think what they meant was when shooting in RAW+Jpeg mode where picture modes and the clear view options are locked out unless you shoot exclusively in Jpeg mode.
I would like to see those modes unlocked when shooting in RAW+Jpeg (applied to the Jpeg file, or record a separate Jpeg file with the picture mode applied, while keeping the RAW file unprocessed) because sometimes those modes come in useful, however, I would also like to have a RAW file.
Sony should have also included the option to apply the filters to Jpeg files after they have been taken, then save it as a new file like other manufactures offer in their cameras.
Quite common on most Point n Shoot cameras and Sony really doesnt have greatest quality testing department. Somewhere around Samsung quality unfortunately..
